TechTrends

, Volume 60, Issue 2, pp 176–182 | Cite as

Student See Versus Student Do: A Comparative Study of Two Online Tutorials

  • Ilana Stonebraker
  • M. Brooke Robertshaw
  • Jennifer D. Moss
Original Paper

Abstract

This study examines the impact on student performance after interactive and non-interactive tutorials using a 2 × 2 treatment-control design. In an undergraduate management course, a control group watched a video tutorial while the treatment group received the same content using a dynamic tutorial. Both groups received the same quiz questions. Using effect size to determine magnitude of change, it was found that those in the treatment condition performed better than those in the control condition. Students were able to take the quiz up to two times. When examining for change in performance from attempt one to attempt two, the treatment group showed a greater magnitude of change. Students who consistently performed lowest on the quizzes outperformed all students in learning gains.

Keywords

Information literacy Guide on the side Online tutorials Instructional technology Screencasts 

References

  1. Allen, E.I., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance online education in the United States, 2011. Babson Research Group. Retrieved July 16, 2014, from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf.
  2. Anderson, R. P., & Wilson, S. P. (2009). Quantifying the effectiveness of interactive tutorials in medical library instruction. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 28(1), 10–21. doi:10.1080/02763860802615815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arguello, N. (2013). Secondary marketing research certificate: library collaboration with the college of business and marketing faculty. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 18(4), 309–329. doi:10.1080/08963568.2013.825559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Betty, P. (2008). Creation, management, and assessment of library screencasts: the regis libraries animated tutorials project. Part of a special issue on the proceedings of the thirteenth Off-Campus Library Services Conference, part 1, 48(3/4), 295–315. doi:10.1080/01930820802289342.Google Scholar
  7. Bracke, P. J., & Dickstein, R. (2002). Web tutorials and scalable instruction: testing the waters. Reference Services Review, 30(4), 330–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coe, R. (2002). It’s the effect size, stupid: what effect size is and why it is important. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association. England: University of Exeter. Available from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2002). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Florence: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Craig, C. L., & Friehs, C. G. (2013). Video and HTML: testing online tutorial formats with biology students. Journal of Web Librarianship, 7(3), 292–304. doi:10.1080/19322909.2013.815112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewald, N., Scholz-Crane, A., Booth, A., & Levine, C. (2000). Information literacy at a distance: instructional design issues. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(1), 33–44. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(99)00121-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 57(6), 14–27. doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0698-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1147–1160. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213–1216. doi:10.1126/science.1204820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li, Q., & Edmonds, K. A. (2005). Mathematics and at-risk adult learners: would technology help? Journal of Research on Technology in Education (International Society for Technology in Education), 38(2), 143–166.Google Scholar
  16. Mery, Y., DeFrain, E., Kline, E., & Sult, L. (2014). Evaluating the effectiveness of tools for online database instruction. Communications in Information Literacy, 8(1), 70–81. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(99)80172-4.Google Scholar
  17. Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: an integrated approach. Florence: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  18. Silver, S. L., & Nickel, L. T. (2005). Are online tutorials effective? A comparison of online and classroom library instruction methods. Research Strategies, 20(4), 389–396. doi:10.1016/j.resstr.2006.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sult, L., Mery, Y., Blakiston, R., & Kline, E. (2013). A new approach to online database instruction: developing the guide on the side. Reference Services Review, 41(1), 125–133. doi:10.1108/00907321311300947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thomas, J., & Gosling, C. (2009). An evaluation of the use of “Guides at the Side” web-based learning activities to equip students in health sciences and nursing with information literacy skills. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 15(2), 173–186. doi:10.1080/13614530903240486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thompson, B. (2002). What future quantitative social science research would look like: confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Turnbull, B., Royal, B., & Purnell, M. (2011). Using an interdisciplinary partnership to develop nursing students’ information literacy skills: an evaluation. Contemporary Nurse, 38(1–2), 122–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Woodard, B. S. (2003). Technology and the constructivist learning environment: implications for teaching information literacy skills. Research Strategies, 19(3–4), 181–192. doi:10.1016/j.resstr.2005.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yang, S. (2009). Information literacy online tutorials: an introduction to rationale and technological tools in tutorial creation. The Electronic Library, 27(4), 684–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhang, L., Watson, E. M., & Banfield, L. (2007). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction versus face-to-face instruction in academic libraries: a systematic review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(4), 478–484. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilana Stonebraker
    • 1
  • M. Brooke Robertshaw
    • 2
  • Jennifer D. Moss
    • 3
  1. 1.Purdue University LibrariesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Oregon State University LibrariesOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Center for Instructional ExcellencePurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations